Motor Trend Comparison: 2011 Mustang GT vs 2011 BMW M3


I don't understand how you could claim to say that the M3 is better in every way compared to either the C63 or especially the C2S which in my mind is superior at every performance and driving based discipline.

I won't debate whether the M3 lack low end grunt or not, some feel it's perfectly acceptable while others don't. But driven like you stole it and the M3 is an amazingly effective and blindingly fast machine.
 
I don't understand how you could claim to say that the M3 is better in every way compared to either the C63 or especially the C2S which in my mind is superior at every performance and driving based discipline.
.
I didn't mention C63 above and when i say M3 is better than Carrera S i mean 2 years ago when the M3 6 speed was first came out it was able to beat Carrera S in every performance category. And C63 can only beat M3 in a straightline but in low RPM tractability in high gears, handling, build quality and even comfort M3 will beat it easily.
 
The thing Mustang lacks is the pure driving pleasure of the M3 which is something that can't be achieved by putting truck engines into motorcycle body.


Purely subjective. And I don't see how you can make this statement unless you have driven the new GT. It looks on paper to be quite an involving car. If you have driven it and you feel that way, that's fine.

I see a lot of negative comments in this thread from folks who have obviously yet to experience this new car, maybe it's just because it was compered with the iconic M3. And it also seems like you guys are dismissing it's positive attributes and improvements over its predecessor based on old prejudices.

Again, it is the value proposition that makes the GT so diserable. Mid- $30's in the U.S.A. pretty much loaded. Lots of bang for the buck.

My $.02.
 
I have one question I would love to ask Ford, which is why insist on using a live rear axle? Especially in this day and age. :t-hands:
 
It has always been interesting to me how American V8s are considered "truck" engines while Mercedes-Benz V8s aren't. If you compare the two, the power delivery philosophies are very similar.
 
Purely subjective. And I don't see how you can make this statement unless you have driven the new GT. It looks on paper to be quite an involving car. If you have driven it and you feel that way, that's fine.

I see a lot of negative comments in this thread from folks who have obviously yet to experience this new car, maybe it's just because it was compered with the iconic M3. And it also seems like you guys are dismissing it's positive attributes and improvements over its predecessor based on old prejudices.

Again, it is the value proposition that makes the GT so diserable. Mid- $30's in the U.S.A. pretty much loaded. Lots of bang for the buck.

My $.02.
It is not subjective, it is the verdict of every one who has driven M3 and that's what it's all about. M3 without pure driving experience is no longer an M car, it is just a normal sports car. When i said the driving experience of the M3 is better, that doesn't mean the Mustang has no driving pleasure but it is not as good as M3 in this category and i think the driver in the video somehow had more fun and excitement with the M3 and when he was asked about the laptime, he predicted M3 to be faster.

I didn't give any unreasonable negative comments about the Mustang. I even took it's gearing and engine into consideration and tried to say why this particular Mustang has become more successful than the earlier models. I also mentioned it's great value for money. Now how can you call me subjective or biased??
I love the Mustang even before MT compared it with M3. I just prefer the German engineering and top build quality of the M3 and that's what makes it really special but if i had to spend $30000 for a car, i would definitely buy this Mustang without a second thought.
 
It has always been interesting to me how American V8s are considered "truck" engines while Mercedes-Benz V8s aren't. If you compare the two, the power delivery philosophies are very similar.
The power delivery maybe similar but obviously what American V8s lack is the superb refinement of Mercedes V8s.
 
It is not subjective

Of course it's subjective. Unlike figures which tell if one car is quicker than another or produces more power than another this is all about how it makes you feel which can't be measured, no two people view things the exact same way. Some people may find the driving experience of the GT to be better than the M3 for reasons only known to them but that doesn't mean they are wrong, only that it's different than the majority. It's like a movie was crap, where as someone else might think it was great, it's all subjective.

Another thing, I bet many here have driven all the M3 versions, I know I have and every single one of them have a slightly different character to each other, it all depends on what you view makes an M car different than all others cause I sure as hack can't put my finger on it.
 
It is not subjective, it is the verdict of every one who has driven M3 and that's what it's all about. M3 without pure driving experience is no longer an M car, it is just a normal sports car. When i said the driving experience of the M3 is better, that doesn't mean the Mustang has no driving pleasure but it is not as good as M3 in this category and i think the driver in the video somehow had more fun and excitement with the M3 and when he was asked about the laptime, he predicted M3 to be faster.

I didn't give any unreasonable negative comments about the Mustang. I even took it's gearing and engine into consideration and tried to say why this particular Mustang has become more successful than the earlier models. I also mentioned it's great value for money. Now how can you call me subjective or biased??
I love the Mustang even before MT compared it with M3. I just prefer the German engineering and top build quality of the M3 and that's what makes it really special but if i had to spend $30000 for a car, i would definitely buy this Mustang without a second thought.


"Truck engines into motorcycle body" caught my eye, I thought it was unreasonable and negative.

I didn't single you out (folks is plural), never said anyone was biased either. I did suggest that some might have old prejudices against American cars.

You haven't driven the GT and yet you assume it will be less engaging than the M3 (and less reliable, poorer build quality etc.) based on what? The Motor Trend comparison that started this thread? And yes, I was very impressed and appreciative of the post you reference where you highlighted some positives about the GT.

My last 5 cars have been BMW's BTW. And I have driven several M3's, don't know if I will find the GT less engaging, haven't driven one. In fact, I am a big fan of the M3 and the brand in general. My beef is with sweeping statements about the shortcomings of the GT from some here which are purely speculative and subjective in my view.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see how the "purists" respond when the next M3 gets a six cylinder turbo.
 
Some people may find the driving experience of the GT to be better than the M3 for reasons only known to them but that doesn't mean they are wrong, only that it's different than the majority.

I agree, some people even find 4WD more entertaining and engaging than RWD!
 
"Truck engines into motorcycle body" caught my eye, I thought it was unreasonable and negative.
It was just a joke about American approach to cars;)

I did suggest that some might have old prejudices against American cars.
And i don't have any prejudices against American cars because i am a muscle car fan especially Shelby Mustangs and Cobras:t-drive:.



You haven't driven the GT and yet you assume it will be less engaging than the M3 (and less reliable, poorer build quality etc.) And yes, I was very impressed and appreciative of the post you reference where you highlighted some positives about the GT.
Thank you for your appreciation but i think the fact that M3 has better build quality is quite abvious because it even has better build quality than C63 AMG which is a Mercedes and no one has ever seen an American car that can beat a German car for quality and engineering. Even Corvette ZR1 which costs much more than this Mustang has poor interior quality.



On a side note, it will be interesting to see how the "purists" respond when the next M3 gets a six cylinder turbo.
The next M3 will be sure faster and better BUT i do prefer high-revving lag-free engines with flat torque curve to torquey and low-revving engines which will never sound as good as a high-revving engine and there is always a kind of lag in their power deliveries which is annoying. The only reason why BMW switched to Turbo engines for the next cars was fuel consumption and emissions not because of anything else.
 
I have one question I would love to ask Ford, which is why insist on using a live rear axle? Especially in this day and age. :t-hands:
When Ford engineered the current generation of Mustangs, they thought they could save $100 per car if they used the live axle. It turned out to cost them more than that once NVH engineering was done (and I'm not convinced the handling engineering is completely done).
2010 Ford Mustang: Near Enough is Not Good Enough | Car News Blog at Motor Trend

Mustang is not the only current car without independent rear suspension. The Kia Forte, VW Polo, Audi A1, Toyota Yaris & Prius, and US-market Jettas have torsion beams. I reckon most people in segments are willing to put up with the shortcomings of a live axle, assuming they can even realize the difference. Many will think a bad ride over bumps is expected in a very affordable car.
 
When Ford engineered the current generation of Mustangs, they thought they could save $100 per car if they used the live axle. It turned out to cost them more than that once NVH engineering was done (and I'm not convinced the handling engineering is completely done).
2010 Ford Mustang: Near Enough is Not Good Enough | Car News Blog at Motor Trend

Mustang is not the only current car without independent rear suspension. The Kia Forte, VW Polo, Audi A1, Toyota Yaris & Prius, and US-market Jettas have torsion beams. I reckon most people in segments are willing to put up with the shortcomings of a live axle, assuming they can even realize the difference. Many will think a bad ride over bumps is expected in a very affordable car.

I generally don't have a problem with the setup when it's used in the appropriate class of car, namely the small city round about or the small family hatch, but in a sportscar and one with 400+hp then I do question their reasoning.
 
Well, simple means affordable and reliable... and is there, objecctively, anything wrong with a sportscar being simple?
 
Hopefully the next-gen Mustang gets an IRS; then the car will have the capability of becoming truly exceptional. The sad thing is if the car stays U.S.A only there is no real push because it is already beating Camaro and Challenger. Hopefully comparisons like this forces Ford to make the car available world wide and truly target BMW M3. On the world stage an IRS is a requirement to enter the party no matter how well the solid axle performs.

If an IRS is chosen the struggle for Ford will be controlling weight and cost. It won't be easy to develop a "cheap" IRS and drivertrain that will withstand the torque the powertrain is putting out. Mustang Cobra owners were known to destroy differentials.
 
IMO, it's a stretch to call the Mustang a sportscar. Or even the M3, for that matter. The Ford is a muscle/pony car that happens to turn very well, better than others in its class with IRS. Faster than some bonafide sportscars sure, but the experience is not the same.

hbs1906, you've touched on some subjects that Ford themselves have been thinking about apparently:
Next Ford Mustang Going Global - Future of the Ford Mustang - Motor Trend
Personally, I think that the IRS may help to open the Mustang up to markets that before would not have considered the car based on the live axle setup and the stigma of crudeness that entails. This could actually reduce the unit cost of the Mustang. The American car companies, not just Ford, have had difficulties in the past in making these long-term decisions at the expense of short-term profits. Perhaps the rounds of bankruptcy, and threats thereof, have changed that.

But to truly take on the M3, the IRS alone isn't going to be enough. MB have specifically targeted the M3 and has shown that it's a lot harder than it seems. Matching the laptimes is probably the easiest part of taking on the M3.
 
I didn't mention C63 above and when i say M3 is better than Carrera S i mean 2 years ago when the M3 6 speed was first came out it was able to beat Carrera S in every performance category. And C63 can only beat M3 in a straightline but in low RPM tractability in high gears, handling, build quality and even comfort M3 will beat it easily.

I just find some of the sweeping statements to be unfair. I don't know how the M3 will "beat" a C63 in "build quality", in fact, I'd beg to differ. I'm more confident in the constructional quality in the C63, and if I had to put lots of miles on either, I'd probably feel more confident in the C63 as well. I wouldn't make a statement that I think it's "better", because I don't really know, but I do know which one I feel I'd give the nod to. If you're speaking of interior refinement, then sure, I'd agree with you, as the W204's interior is pathetic and crude (yet still build to an extremely high degree of solidity and fit/finish), and frankly, an embarrassment for M-B.

The power delivery maybe similar but obviously what American V8s lack is the superb refinement of Mercedes V8s.

M-B makes perhaps the best V8's around, no argument there. But I wouldn't say a good American V8 lacks the refinement necessarily. The Americans have made some of the best V8's of all time, and many of them are plenty refined, even ones that have a double-character, like the Mustang (intended to be hard and muscle-y, yet livable). Even GM with their dinosaur OHV V8's are masterfully engineered, they're using an ancient approach, yet have motors that provide insane HP, insane MPG, insanely good reliability/longetivity/durability, and are smooth as silk.

Also, it seems a lot of people here aren't giving the Mustang credit where it's due. Maybe it's not as engaging as an M3 (hilarious to even have to seriously say that, as in there's a serious argument about it), however, don't write it off as any old "straight line only/clumsy" Mustang. Everyone who *has driven* the car, seems to feel it is shockingly outperforming cars one would never assume it to, and this is with the live axle, etc. Wait 'till the next Mustang comes out....
 

Thread statistics

Created
hbs1906,
Last reply from
K-A,
Replies
93
Views
9,734

Trending content


Back
Top